No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

[Divine Insight]

Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration. Solipsism holds that only one person is having an experience and everything else (including all other people) are just an illusion in the mind of the one single person who is imagining life to exist.

Solipsism can't be disproved. We have no way to determine whether other people are actually having an experience. Yet, dispute the fact that it can't be disproved most people dismiss it as simply being a highly unlikely hypothesis. It just seems more rational to believe that all humans and even animals are actually having an experience just like us.

And this is a very rational position to take.

~~~~~

So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time.

Question for debate, "Does this make any more sense than solipsism?"

Is it even remotely reasonable to hypothesize that humans have no free will, meaning that everything they do has already been determined ahead of time?

[instantc]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what? Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

As I said before, the only coherent concept of free will is that which exists as a matter of subjective experience.

[Miles]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what?

I'll go along with the Oxford Dictionary's definition, with two additions.
"The power of acting [and thinking] without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act [and think] at one’s own discretion."
source

Pragmatically, free will is the ability to have done differently.

Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

See post 84

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

Choice does not exist where determinism and randomness are the operating agents, so in as much as free will is an illusion, choosing does not exist. Don't bother trying to work with it.

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 90 by Blastcat]

Ok, that's what it says in the Bible. The Bible says something. I have previously asked you why we should take anything in the Bible as true?

The best reason to believe the Bible is true is that it offers the true believer an active role in continuing life. In other words, if the main parts of the Bible are true and you past the test to reveal that you are of the cream of the crop, you'll get the job of playing an active role in continuing life in the new earth that will have replaced this destroyed Earth.

How does God know who the cream of the crop are? By sending a new message of a new messenger in every generation to challenge the professed beliefs of people who already claim salvation.

The whole reason for this world's existence is not to create people then save them. It's existence is to gather the evidence of how a world of evil and good acts, so that evidence can be telepathically presented to the perfect people living in the real world before the real world ends up like this one. The real world has evolved (and is still evolving) to perfection, just like it was in Eden of Genesis, where people in the real world don't have the realization of being naked, etc, unless they eat of a particular fruit that is able to make people aware of evil. Evidently two people did just that, and started telepathically transmitting new strange thoughts because of the fruit they had partaken that probably caused part of their DNA that was dormant to become active giving them the realization of evil (like knowing you are naked).

The latter day message is about accepting revealed biblical prophecy by the true messenger that will save the believer from events that will soon happen again. Thereby saving you from the sin against present truth and receiving the reward offered in the Bible of playing an active role in a new world.

Or be hard-headed and just say "ain't believing the bible" and receive what your present belief is offering: absolutely nothing.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 93 by sevensealscom]

Ok, that's what it says in the Bible. The Bible says something. I have previously asked you why we should take anything in the Bible as true?

The best reason to believe the Bible is true is that it offers the true believer an active role in continuing life. In other words, if the main parts of the Bible are true and you past the test to reveal that you are of the cream of the crop, you'll get the job of playing an active role in continuing life in the new earth that will have replaced this destroyed Earth.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. However, I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I asked why we should take anything in the Bible as true, and you answered me with a reason why we should BELIEVE that it is true.

Notice the difference.. I asked how it is true, and you answered why we should believe. IF the Bible offers something that is not true, what is the value of the promise that it gives?

It would offer a false promise to the true believer.

So, I will rephrase the question. How do you know that the offer that you find in the Bible is a true offer? How do you know that the Bible is true?

This forum demands evidence to support claims like the ones you have given, such as the Bible offers an active role in continuing life.

Why should we believe that this continuing life idea is a true one?

It seems to me that you are saying that you find the Bible USEFUL, if it is true. But it would only be TRULY useful if the ideas in the Bible are TRUE. The ideas in the Bible won't be useful to anyone if the ideas found in it are FALSE.

I hope that clarifies my question?

Let me know if you still don't get it. It's important that we understand each others point of view, in my opinion. And thank you for responding so far. I always find it fascinating when someone allows me to understand their religious kind of thinking.

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 94 by Blastcat]

So, I will rephrase the question. How do you know that the offer that you find in the Bible is a true offer? How do you know that the Bible is true?

To make a long story short, I don't know (as to be 100% sure) that the offer written on pieces of paper in the Bible is true, or that the Bible itself is true. I know 100% that the Bible exists because I have a copy with the word Bible written on it. And yes, I did open it to verity that it is a true copy, maybe it has some typos.

I do accept the many evidences it presents and its general theme. For instance, many historical references to places and figures.
Many biblical writers of end time prophecies were purported to have been killed for giving their hard to accept message that denounced the leadership, nation, and professed people of God.
The understanding of the written symbols (fascinating on their own) in the Bible (especially in the book of revelation) that purposely veil the meaning of the written prophecies that reveal events of how the world will end. So that in the time of the end, the latter day messenger can reveal the true understanding of written biblical prophecies to warn people that are convinced that his message is of God.

The reason God needs believers and non believers is so a distinction can be seen in the movie of this life when the events of this world are revealed to the people of the real world.

The biblical message regarding salvation in in the latter days couldn't be simpler: believe the new message that directs how to be saved from events that are soon going to be replayed just as these same events happened in the previous timeline. Then enjoy playing a part in a new world where evil thoughts don't exist, like it was in Eden before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 95 by sevensealscom]

So, I will rephrase the question. How do you know that the offer that you find in the Bible is a true offer? How do you know that the Bible is true?

To make a long story short, I don't know (as to be 100% sure) that the offer written on pieces of paper in the Bible is true, or that the Bible itself is true. I know 100% that the Bible exists because I have a copy with the word Bible written on it. And yes, I did open it to verity that it is a true copy, maybe it has some typos.

Ok, we can agree that the Bible EXISTS. But I don't ask if it exists. I ask how can we know that the Biblical stories are TRUE.

What I want to know is why I should take what it SAYS is true. You say that you aren't certain. I would like to ask you HOW certain ARE you, on a scale of 0 to 100 ... zero being NO certainty at all, and 100 being COMPLETELY certain. This might help me understand your position, and allow me to get on the same page with you.

I do accept the many evidences it presents and its general theme. For instance, many historical references to places and figures.

Right, many works of fiction use historical facts and places. But we don't have to consider these as TRUE stories. So, why do you accept that the Bible has TRUE stories?

Many biblical writers of end time prophecies were purported to have been killed for giving their hard to accept message that denounced the leadership, nation, and professed people of God.

Well, let's say that they died for their beliefs, for the sake of the argument.

Does that suffice as proof that what they believed in was TRUE? They might have been deluded or very sorely mistaken. They might not have been given a choice to die or not. Some people might have merely been falsely ACCUSED of believing, some people might have recanted and not believed, but killed anyway, for other reasons, some believers might have been killed for any other reason, maybe they stole a cow... and so on. Lots of reasons why people might die for something that they "believe in", and STILL no actual proof that what was believed was TRUE in any way.

So, that answer doesn't address the question.

The understanding of the written symbols (fascinating on their own) in the Bible (especially in the book of revelation) that purposely veil the meaning of the written prophecies that reveal events of how the world will end.

So some secret code is supposed to verify the TRUTH of the Bible? How do we KNOW that there is some meaningful code if we don't know what the code translates TO?

Does the Bible secretly decodes to something important, like, say... a cure for cancer?

I would not be too impressed if the code read something like "this book is true". What DOES the code hidden in the Bible say, and how is what the code says some PROOF or evidence that the Bible stories are TRUE in any way?

So that in the time of the end, the latter day messenger can reveal the true understanding of written biblical prophecies to warn people that are convinced that his message is of God.

Oh, we don't even know what the code ( if there IS such a code ) reveals YET.. So, are you saying that you believe that the Bible is true because you think there is a code embedded within, that will, one day be broken and PROVE somehow, that what the Bible says is true?

Why should anyone believe THAT? I ask you how we can know if the Bible is true, and you ask me to believe that an supposedly encoded message will prove it, but you don't say why anyone should believe THAT.

You keep making your task harder if you want to prove the Bible true by offering other claims that you would need to prove true FIRST.

So, in effect, are you saying that you HOPE that one day there will be proof that what the Bible says is true? Because if that's what you mean, that's the same as admitting that you DON'T currently have any proof that the Bible is true.

So, if you don't CURRENTLY have proof that the Bible is true, why tell us about something that you ALSO have not given us any proof about?

Again, why should anyone believe that the Bible is true?
Why should we believe that martyrs died for TRUE propositions?
Why should we believe that the Bible CODE reveals the truth of the Bible?

Why make your task all the more impossible? It's already hard enough, I imagine.

The reason God needs believers and non believers is so a distinction can be seen in the movie of this life when the events of this world are revealed to the people of the real world.

I don't ask about why there are BELIEVERS in the Bible stories. I ask WHY believe the Bible stories are TRUE? How about you answer my first question and then we can have you answer other, even more fascinating ones, later?

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 96 by Blastcat]

I don't ask about why there are BELIEVERS in the Bible stories. I ask WHY believe the Bible stories are TRUE? How about you answer my first question and then we can have you answer other, even more fascinating ones, later?

Let's see, it took three spirits to convince scrooge about Christmas.

If the true Jesus came down from the sky (I'm not saying I believe that interpretation of Bible prophecy) and didn't act as Christians expected Jesus to act, then Jesus would be labeled as the anti Christ trying to deceive Christians.

I'm thinking that even if I could send an angel/ghost/spirit/voice to tell you that the Bible was true, you would probably think I drugged you in some way or hypnotized you or had some other way to manipulate your thought process.

I'm of the belief that the only way you will believe the Bible stories are true is if God told you it was true in some way that you could believe God was definitely communicating with you.

I could flip the question you ask me and say why not believe the bible stories are true. You would probably say that they are to full of unbelievable miracles and borrowed fables/myths that never happened. I would say that they are possible in a world that is being dreamed into existence. you would say, prove that this world is being dreamed, and I could say, prove it isn't being dreamed. Since we both have dreams, we know that people in dreams don't know they are of a dream, so there is no way you could know this world is being dreamed into existence.

You are asking why I believe the Bible stories are true. The reason is that I have accepted them beyond reasonable doubt to be historical and factual, especially with my insight in regards to prophecies and why and how this world exists and the message of the Bible pertaining to salvation.

Why should you believe the Bible stories? You could believe for the same reasons I just stated. If not, you are a like Scrooge with a humbug approach to history written in the Bible.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but personally, I wouldn't care whether you asked me another question or not.
Good luck with the rest of your life.

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 90 by Blastcat]

Ok, that's what it says in the Bible. The Bible says something. I have previously asked you why we should take anything in the Bible as true?

Firstly, you can take the Bible as true because you believe it to be true after reading everything written in the bible , or after reading it you believe parts of it as true, or after reading it you believe none of it as true,, or you believe it is true or false based on what others say about the bible. This is how people believe or disbelieve something that is claimed to have happened in the past. But you already know all that. So, what you are really saying is that you will not believe the bible unless God himself/herself proves that it is true.
The good news is that God will prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt during the judgment. The bad news is that you will have been proven to be dead wrong. Your reward will be non-existence, which is what you are being offered with your present belief. So no hard feelings really.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 97 by sevensealscom]

I don't ask about why there are BELIEVERS in the Bible stories. I ask WHY believe the Bible stories are TRUE? How about you answer my first question and then we can have you answer other, even more fascinating ones, later?

Let's see, it took three spirits to convince scrooge about Christmas.

Let's see, Scrooge is a fictional character in a book. Why should we believe the Bible is true? Because it's like Scrooge, about some fictional character?

If the true Jesus came down from the sky (I'm not saying I believe that interpretation of Bible prophecy) and didn't act as Christians expected Jesus to act, then Jesus would be labeled as the anti Christ trying to deceive Christians.

Who cares if this is all but a grand old fiction? Why should we believe that the Bible stories are true, including this "anti-Christ" story?

I'm thinking that even if I could send an angel/ghost/spirit/voice to tell you that the Bible was true, you would probably think I drugged you in some way or hypnotized you or had some other way to manipulate your thought process.

I am asking about how we can tell if the Bible is true? My skepticism would go away if we could show some factual evidence for it.

I'm of the belief that the only way you will believe the Bible stories are true is if God told you it was true in some way that you could believe God was definitely communicating with you.

Yes, it's true that I would only accept a very GOOD reason to believe that the Bible is true. I don't know if that would be a good one, but it would be at least, a good start in that direction.

But you can't possibly demonstrate to an non believer that the Bible IS true until that scenario above were to happen. That sounds like a fiction to me. And it hasn't happened YET, but I used to believe that the Bible was true when I allowed myself to simply accept my indoctrination and not ASK for some method to actually KNOW if the Bible is true.

If you CAN'T prove that the Bible is true, why believe that it is?

I could flip the question you ask me and say why not believe the bible stories are true.

You could try doing that, but I wouldn't bite.

Flipping the question over to me isn't actually answering the question. I would say that trying that is avoiding to answer the question by a diversion tactic.

You would probably say that they are to full of unbelievable miracles and borrowed fables/myths that never happened. I would say that they are possible in a world that is being dreamed into existence. you would say, prove that this world is being dreamed, and I could say, prove it isn't being dreamed.

If you would say "prove that it isn't being dreamed" you would be attempting to shift the burden of the proof. You are the one making a claim. I don't have to disprove it, you have the burden to prove that it is true. There are a lot of folks with strange beliefs that YOU dont feel the need to disprove.

Disprove Nirvana, for example. If you can't, does that mean Nirvana is real?
Disprove a celestial tea pot in orbit between Mars and Venus. If you can't, IS there a tea pot in orbit as we speak traveling thousands of miles per hour?

Since we both have dreams, we know that people in dreams don't know they are of a dream, so there is no way you could know this world is being dreamed into existence.

We might be in the Matrix. Disprove the Matrix, while you are at it. The point is that people do have powerful imaginations, and their imaginations even work while asleep. What we can imagine might NOT be true.

Please demonstrate that the Bible stories are anything more than imaginary.
We know that the human imagination is a real thing, a true thing, but we DO NOT know that the Bible stories are real or true. Desert people got bored of not having T.V. so they "dreamed up" some good stories for the campfire.

Disprove THAT .

You are asking why I believe the Bible stories are true. The reason is that I have accepted them beyond reasonable doubt to be historical and factual, especially with my insight in regards to prophecies and why and how this world exists and the message of the Bible pertaining to salvation.

You misunderstand the question. I repeat it here for you.

I am not asking WHY you believe. I ask you how we can know if the Bible is true.

That is an entirely different question. HOW did you come to accept that the Bible is true beyond a reasonable doubt? How can WE use your method, ( you have to first describe your methodology ) to know that the Bible stories are true?

I hope that clarifies the question I have been asking and asking. You seem to answer BESIDES the question. You are close, but you seem confused about what I'm actually asking about.

Why should you believe the Bible stories? You could believe for the same reasons I just stated. If not, you are a like Scrooge with a humbug approach to history written in the Bible.

You just told me that you accept the Bible stories are true. You didn't say HOW you arrived at that conclusion. So, I simply can't follow you. I have literally NOTHING to follow you.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but personally, I wouldn't care whether you asked me another question or not.
Good luck with the rest of your life.

Oh you don't care to answer the question. That makes sense.
A whole lot of people don't care to question their faith, but some of them like to talk about it as if it were all true.

I am just asking how you have come to KNOW that the Bible is true. But of course, you never have to feel that you must answer questions.

But refusing to answer them rather reduces your capacity for debate.
And good luck with your life, as well.

[instantc]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what?

I'll go along with the Oxford Dictionary's definition, with two additions.
"The power of acting [and thinking] without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act [and think] at one’s own discretion."
source

Pragmatically, free will is the ability to have done differently.

Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

See post 84

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

Choice does not exist where determinism and randomness are the operating agents, so in as much as free will is an illusion, choosing does not exist. Don't bother trying to work with it.

I still see some confusion, you keep refusing to answer my questions. I can look at the dictionary myself too, thank you.

Setting aside the fact that you can't explain what you mean by free will, here's the main issue:

You have explained why you think that blaming someone doesn't make sense without free will. This is all good with me, since I haven't even heard of a coherent definition of free will to begin with. However, you've completely failed to explain how placing blame would make any more sense with free will.